The constitution vs. The Federal judges and congress



Download 17.14 Kb.
Date09.05.2016
Size17.14 Kb.
#36946
The CONSTITUTION vs. The Federal JUDGES and CONGRESS

This article is intended to inspire the interest of the people in their rights and how to claim such, which should be a matter of great public interest. Do you have rights? Does the Constitution give you rights?...Or are they from a higher source?

The signers of the Declaration of Independence acknowledged that the peoples rights come from "their creator." An analysis of the subject reveals that our rights are God-given and the Constitution was drawn up by the people to create a government to protect those God-given rights, not to circumvent or deprive such rights. We rely upon the powers granted by the Constitution for Congress to provide laws, the executive branch to execute those laws correctly, and the judicial courts to uphold those laws in protection of our God-given rights.

The "Supremacy clause" is at Article VI, Cl. 2, in the federal Constitution and states as follows:



"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Sounds good, doesn't it? But...when the judges fail to uphold the provisions of the Constitution, are they still judges? Not according to the Supreme Court that ruled in U.S. v. Stewart as follows:



"8. United States (key)125(1). Government officer may be sued only if he acts in excess of his statutory authority or in violation of the Constitution for then he ceases to represent government." U.S. v. Stewart, 234 F.Supp. 94 (1964).

The events happening in the courts at this time makes it imperative that this article be written about Congress and about the judicial system in these United States of America and how it is to function under the laws of Congress.

There are a great number of people in this country that believe that the courts they see on TV and the six o'clock news, or the courthouse building in their county, are courts of law and justice. The proceedings in these courts are, for the most part, quasi-judicial proceedings and are conducted in a manner that deceives you into believing that the judicial system is at work protecting you. Falling prey to such an assumption is fatal from the standpoint of truth, justice, and the preservation of your rights.

The de jure government created by the Constitution is a three-branch system with checks and balances in each of the three branches to correct each other. The loss of any one of the three branches of government is, in effect, a loss of the government in its entirety.

We have always had an oppressive executive branch of government. However, until a few years ago, a Constitutional judicial branch of government existed to protect the people from oppressive government interference. In 1976, which incidentally, was the bicentennial year of America's independence, while we were out in the streets waving your American Flag and being told that this country and the Constitution had survived 200 years without being over thrown by a foreign government, Congress was busy passing Public Law 94-381, the law amending the procedural law that identified the court in which injunctions are obtained to enforce your constitutional rights, namely, the Three-judge District Court set forth at Title 28 U.S.C. sec. 2284. This law by itself was not a bad law. However, when it was amended in 1976, it changed the method by which an injured citizen could get injunctive relief to enjoin the de facto government officer and stop further injuries to the citizen by enforcing the First and Fourteenth Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The only procedure for a citizen to get redress of a grievance is by an Act of Congress providing a remedy and a court with jurisdiction to enforce such. The only method, at this time, by which the people can get a federal court of competent jurisdiction for civil rights deprivations is set forth in Senate Report 94-204, which was only referenced in the heading of P.L. 94-381, but was not incorporated into Title 28 of the United States Code, nor was it published in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure except for a brief hint in Rule 65(e). The procedures were set forth clearly only in the Senate Report which is hard to find even if you know where to look and what you are looking for. With the "intent" of Congress hidden from the people, the de facto courts are more than happy to grant the real criminals [the de facto government officers] immunity from suit for any unlawful act that they may have committed against you, including deprivation of civil rights and possible death. Is this what the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution intended?...and pledged their 'lives, fortunes, and sacred honor' for?...and fought and died for?

Under Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America, Congress has the duty to enforce the provisions of Sec. 1 of that Amendment, which they did by the passage of Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 enforcing Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and Congress has designated the court in which people can apply the remedy requiring injunctive relief, namely, the Three-judge District Court defined at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284, with the legislative intent thereto in Senate Report 94-204 holding to the principal of law that constitutional issues are of great public interest and cannot be intrusted to a single judge's interpretation.

This issue was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United State in 1972 by defining the law in Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 2162 (1972), that a citizen injured by a Government Officer and seeking injunctive relief through a Title 42 Sec. 1983 suit was an Act of Congress that requires a Three-judge District Court to adjudicate the merits of such case.

So the question now is: If the previous Congress that enacted the law, and the supreme Court that confirmed the law that a Three-judge District Court was required to hear and determine a case at law and equity for the deprivation of Constitutional rights and injuries thereto, why did the 94th Congress change the method by which a citizen could invoke this special court and not also incorporate the prerequisites for obtaining that court in the procedural law in Title 28, in order for the people to exercise the First Amendment right "to petition the Government for redress of Grievances"?

As stated by the Supreme Court in Mapp vs. Ohio, 81 S.Ct.

1684, 1694 (1961), "Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter (Constitution) of its own existence." And the paragraph goes on to quote a dissenting judge, Justice Brandeis, stating, "Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. * * If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

The evidence shows that the 94th Congress did intend to abandon the people and allow the executive branches of government to impose involuntary servitude/slavery on the American people without remedy for redress by not properly publishing notice of the method by which the people could invoke a judicial court with jurisdiction over injunctive relief to protect the rights of the people. People are trying to invoke the Three-judge District Court, relying on Public Law 94-381 with the "intent" of Congress thereto in Senate Report 94-204, but without success. The single judge will not convene the court and the circuit courts have refused to correct to matter on review and the issues have fallen on deaf ears in Congress.

The 94th congress claimed that the act of Public Law 94-381 was "to improve the judicial machinery," and thereby changed the method by which the people could petition the government for redress of grievance, leaving out the prerequisites for obtaining the court of competent jurisdiction and the court for review of the denial of such court by a single judge, and left the people without any prayer for relief in that the courts refuse to constitute the three-judge court for the people, however they do grant this court to the corporations.

The questions now, 23 years later, are: In amending Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284, did the 94th Congress act against the interest of the people? Did the 94th Congress abandon their office by that act? Has the present Congress taken the same position against the people?

If these Federal court judges are not corrected through the power of impeachment granted to Congress by the Constitution, the Constitution is truly dead to the people, and without the Constitution, the nation that was held together by it no longer exists, and Congress has committed a high crime against the people by failure to enforce the provisions of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as the duty described in Article I and at Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution for the United State of America.

A complaint/petition was filed with Congress on July 1, 1999 addressing causes for the impeachment of six Federal judges in the Eleventh circuit. The evidence provided to Congress with the claim shows that these six judges perjured their oath of Office with knowledge and intent.

Are you interested in the protection of your God-given rights? If so, you may want to call your Congress-person and ask what they intend to do to correct the courts. And you can demand that Congress enforce the peoples rights and require the courts to adhere to the laws including their Oath of office and impeach any judge that denies the people access to the courts of competent jurisdiction (See Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 5, and Sec. 3, Cl. 6), and ask your Congress-person their position on the petition that is before them now to impeach certain federal judges, the case of Jennings vs. Six Federal judges.

Evidence can be found in case number 97-2636-Civ-T-17E, Tampa, Florida, and Case Number 98-2557 and 99-2355 in the Eleventh Circuit Court in Atlanta, Georgia.

Even the Internal Revenue Service is required to take you before a Three-judge District Court before they can enjoin you to do any thing, look at Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 9010(c) as purviewed through a Sec. 6096(b) tax liability.

Do you think that your rights, when placed on sale to the highest bidder, will go to you for a 150-dollar filing fee when the ones opposing you is willing to pay 150,000 dollars or more to take your rights from you?

Are your God-given rights being auctioned off to the highest bidder? And who is the auctioneer?...is it the judges?...is it Congress? Or have the executives become another "King George"? And are all government officers going by the principle in English common law that "the King can do no wrong"?

Is this to be the end result of what the founding fathers of this nation have fought and died for? The answer rests with the American people and their interest in their God-given rights.

Are you willing to face your Congress-person and look them in the eye and ask what their position is on this subject of great public interest?...And insist that they perform their duty to preserve the peoples rights? Or are you content with the deprivation of your God-given rights and the slavery and involuntary servitude being imposed upon the people as so many "persons" appear to be?

Submitted by: John Carol Jennings Sr.



Lakeland, Florida

Download 17.14 Kb.

Share with your friends:




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2022
send message

    Main page